A New Dawn, A New Day

Fareed Zakaria has a bone to pick with America, and not really the country America, just the people who live in it. Zakaria, current editor of Newsweek International, thinks that Americans are no longer keeping up with the times of globalization. What is meant by this is that we, as Americans, think that the only way to keep things on top is to do it the American way, no more of this “If we work together” Disney morals. Zakaria thinks that Americans have become too ignorant to accept the possibility that somewhere outside of the perimeter that is this great country, some other country is coming up with a better idea to help the world.
I think that for the most part, Zakaria is right; people who live in America think that the only way to do things is the American way. I have been in a few restaurants where there will be a foreign worker, or maybe the whole building itself is owned by a foreign person. There have been times when a customer has not been satisfied by his meal and asks for the manager in charge of the store for a refund after the customer had asked to get his meal re-cooked several times. When the manager gets to the table he sees the customer has actually eaten all the food and is asking for a free meal. When the manager says he cannot give the man a free meal because of his eating of the meal, the customer would say “damn foreign customs.” This is a real life example, this shows just how Americans can be when change is at their front door and are asking politely, mind you, to try and think in a new way that would benefit everyone.

The Spectrum of American Standings: Where Do We Lie?

Herbert, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, has a lot of problems with America, mainly about its economy and where it is headed. One of the main points Herbert focuses on is that class division is no longer a hierarchy, now it is more of a “you’re in this side of the spectrum of income, or the other.” Herbert explains this very well in one of his last paragraphs of his article “A Fire in the Basement,” by presenting a quote by Robert Reich saying, “Over the coming decade, the Bush tax cuts will transfer more wealth to the richest one percent of the population than any fiscal policies in history” (402).
Another one of Herbert’s ideas is the progress we Americans made post-World War 2. Harry Truman took the reigns and put America back on the map with the programs he and his cabinet created. Herbert shows just how important these events were by pulling a Stephen King and making a one line paragraph saying, “It was a hell of a few decades (402).
Alan W. Dowd, an editor at the World Politics Review, says just the opposite of Herbert. Dowd may agree with Herbert by saying America has spent a lot over the past decade, but then argue why America is in the lead on economy standards. Dowd says to back up his belief by saying, “At $13.13 trillion, the U.S. economy represents 20 percent of global output. It’s growing faster than Britain’s, Australia’s, Germany’s, Japan’s, Canada’s, even faster than the vaunted European Union” (405).
Another one of Dowd’s ideas is that terms such as “Globalization” are due to American work ethic. Robert Kaplan agrees with Dowd by saying, “Globalization could not occur without American ships and sailors” (407). Dowd is very much aware that many Companies and Franchises are doing extremely well in both America and in other countries in the world, therefore giving more money to the American economy.

A Bright Future, or a Stormy Horizon?

In Bob Herbert’s article “A Fire in the Basement,” Herbert discusses many problems that plague present day America and shows what was better in the past days of our parents and grandparents. In part of his essay he reminices about the America that used to be, soon after the end of World War 2, showing us all the good that came from great leadership and excellently crafted programs to strengthen America economically and morally.
While discussing about the postwar and how everything was seeming to go well, he then goes back into his main argument about how America is doing to poorly now. What I think Herbert is trying to prove in his article is that even though times are hard right now, with good leadership and perseverance, we will be able to come out of this recession and other ill talked about topics like the war in Afghanistan. Even though he is saying what we can do in the future, I think he is also reminding us readers that it will take time. Time that will seem like an eternity at first, but when this is all said and done with, we will be glad we took that time, no matter how long it might have taken.
I think Herbert is stepping in the right direction with these paragraphs he uses as a motivational build to the American people. Though he does have a lot of negative things to say throughout his article, he also has some of the most motivational words one could read, you might have to read it a few times to understand the whole concept of “A Fire in the Basement,” but when you do, I am sure you will be just as enlightened as I am.

Smart and Smut: the Fine Line

There seems to be a time in everyone’s life after watching a television program where they stop and ask themselves “Is this show making me any smarter?” In Gerald Graff’s argument in “hidden Intellectualism” Graff thinks that no matter what the show, there is some form of intellectual analysis that the viewers must have in order to make them smarter. While many say that most television shows are dumbed down so the masses can understand without thinking, Graff thinks there is just as much going on in a sitcom as there is in a History channel program.
One who agrees with Graff’s argument is Antonia Peacocke, a student at Harvard University. In her essay “Family Guy and Freud” Peacocke once thought a show like Family Guy had no class, though after viewing the program more and more, she realized, like Graff, that there was something to take from the 30 minute program, something to dissect, and keep through everyday life. In part of Graff’s argument he explains how the supposed non-intellectual activities he was participating in were actually smarter than others would think. Graff says, “I was practicing being an intellectual before I knew that was what I wanted to be” (Graff 300). Like Peacocke, Graff was partaking in various routines that were making him think more about what could happen in a debate about sports, or in Peacockes essay, Family Guy.
Both Peacocke and Graff have the same view, though throughout Peacockes essay, she is sure to remind her audience that some humor can go too far and stray away from its intellectual pursuit to educate the masses. The same is with Graff’s argument, no matter where you dive your interests into, there are going to be times when the intellectual bits disappear into non-intellectual zones, it’s just a matter if you can go back into more sophisticated work without staying in the same place where nothing is beneficial.

A Perfect Show

Shows on networks come and go these days, it seems sit-coms are having the toughest time maintaining apposition on the weekday line up, and I can see why. Out of the successful shows today, one that stands out to me and most of my friends is LOST on the ABC network. Not only does the show implement parts of suspense, action, and thriller aspects, but a large portion of the show throws comedy in the mix which doesn’t seem like it work on paper, but it is all about how the actors deliver these lines. In my view, what makes LOST so popular among the American population are the storylines, the multiple characters, and the sound of the show.
LOST has something that many would relate the hit show 24 on the FOX network, which would be the multiple storylines and complicated non linear storytelling. I agree with this and disagree at the same time. One the one hand both shows do have complicated storytelling, but on the other hand no one on the show LOST are safe to say they will live throughout the season, while I am fairly sure they won’t kill off Jack Bauer anytime soon due to ratings. Having multiple well fleshed out characters is essential to captivate an audience and I think 24 lacks in that department with only a few good characters that audiences actually care for.
Throughout the seasons in LOST there have been multiple, well fleshed out characters that have their own personalities and every decision they make seems right with the way they are introduced throughout the episodes. What America loves so much about the show is that the writers stay so true to the characters and never stray away from them for too long when focusing on another main character. My friends and I have loved the show LOST because of this feature it carries to keep the audience actively engaged to keep remembering every mini story even if they do not live long enough to play a huge role.
LOST is a television show that I think will live on for a very long time because of its delivery and how each person acts with one another. LOST asks so many questions that one might forget, but then later give the answer to that question a season later. This is a perfect way to keep and audience, and have them stay tuned for each episode, a perfect marketing ploy. Though there are plenty of marketing techniques used in the show LOST there are also plenty on genius methods that make the show an individual from the rest of the shows that try to take their own spotlight from the rest. I think LOST is one of a kind.

Cyborg America

In Sherry Turkle’s article “Can You Hear Me Now?” Turkle shows just how reliant people are on technology in the present day world. Whether it be from a Blackberry to contact a friend, or laptops to search email and hard to find answers, Turkle believes we as people, have lost the aspect of being a human. Throughout her article, Turkle gives five main focus points on which she thinks has the most valid points that have effect on the reader. I am one of the readers she had effect on.
In the article, Turkle has five main points she wants to address to her audience, showing just how neglective we have become of our peers, even though we have the world in our hands. During one part, Turkle tackles the argument of people being too dependent on wireless devices rather than a close friend or perhaps a dictionary. “We are learning to see ourselves as cyborgs, at one with our devices” (Turkle 274). Turkle is right in this aspect, we have become way to reliant on what he have strapped on belts rather than wit and mind power we have been building up since grade school, but this is not the only thing Turkle is right about.
To me, Turkle has shown what is wrong with today’s society in a very humorous way. Her constant use of imagery and different examples are perfect for setting the scene in each of the five points she sets out to show modern day. I think when Turkle talks about a kid being in a city with a cell phone and having security you know she understands the importance of security of a young mind going through unfamiliar places. Turkle also goes on to tell that even though security is a good thing, having a kid know the sense of being completely independent is possibly more important than having the said security at all. This article by Sherry Turkle has to be one of the few articles I have read where I have agreed with everything the author has said.

Are We as Smart as Our Parents?

It seems parent have another thing to put on the “brain rotting check list,” the internet. The internet has been a growing sensation since the mid to late 80s and is now accessible to almost everyone around the world today! That said, it has been targeted by many people such as researchers who say the internet is one of the main reasons why generation Y has come to a screeching halt in basic history and literature knowledge. Today over 33 million Americans use the internet to check out personal interest articles, update their blog space, or just to sit and play games on. But what most parents are saying today is that the internet has put a constricting bubble on their child’s will to learn. I think the internet is not constricting, but liberating in all aspects of the word. With the internet teens can find information in a way they find suitable for their needs without the hassle of feeling like they are meeting a deadline.
Amy Goldwasser, a freelance editor for magazines such as Vouge, seventeen, and the New Yorker, takes side with me saying teens are using the internet for more beneficial uses than parents give them credit for. In her article “What’s the Matter with Kids Today?” Goldwasser shows just how much teens are keeping up on their literature readings. “The average teen chooses to spend an average of 16.7 hours a week reading and writing online” (Goldwasser 239). This quote from the freelance editor shows just how much teens will read voluntarily to educate themselves (even if they are unaware they are doing so). Goldwasser also goes on to say that teens who blog about their everyday lives while reading headlines on online newspapers could quite possibly be the next famous writer to show up on the New York Times Best. I agree with Goldwasser a hundred percent that without a doubt teens should be able to continue their daily routines without being shunned by the older generation of the way they learn.
I think teens should use the internet no matter what they are using it for. Teens who go on the internet and have Yahoo! As their homepage will always see the headline article as the first thing they see. Even this little headline page opener, will keep teens up to date on the current events. If teens want to know more about Stalin in World War 2 they can easily go right to Google and find the information they want without having to stay in a classroom and hear a dry lecture for 50 minutes of their day. Now, this is not to say that the educational system in America is obsolete, I am merely saying educational systems and older generations of people should embrace the fact their children are using the internet as a tool for their futures. Whether they are on a CNN headline article researching what is happening in Afghanistan or just on their Facebook updating what they did for the day, I think their brains are soaking up precious information they will need later on in life to succeed.

Television smarts

In Dana Stevens’s article “Think Outside the Idiot Box” Stevens directly criticizes Steven Johnson several times for his claims in his article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” Johnson says in his article that watching television makes people smarter by shows involving intricate plot lines that people have to follow in order to make sense of the program. Stevens argues against this when she says a show like 24 “discourages them from thinking too much about the vigilante ethic it portrays” (Stevens 232). What Stevens is saying is that while the show 24 may educate audiences somewhat of what other countries and peoples are like, there is plenty more that the show is leaving out, therefore educating its audiences in a biased way. Stevens also criticizes Johnson for excluding other present day televised shows, while he mainly focuses on the Sopranos and 24, Stevens argues there are plenty of dumbed down shows on air today which do not at all make people smarter.
To me, the more persuasive of the two arguments is Johnson. What he does to the reader is make him think about the present day shows and the shows that were on in the 80s in a very funny way. He proves with this diagrams that shows such as Starsky and Hutch were not complex at all in story telling , but very linear and unimaginative. Johnson also shows that many shows today are related to the culture we live in or we hear about. Even dumbed down televised shows may include a reference to something that is huge and smartly put together the way the line is delivered. Stevens argument, while being valid at times, is nothing but a bashing of what she thought was right at the time. Even in her article she says it had only been a day since Johnson had posted his article. What I think Stevens did was come up with what seemed like a smart argument in her head, but clearly misses the whole point Johnson was trying to get across.

Don't get me wrong

1) In making a case for the medical use of marijuana, I am not saying that marijuana should be on the shelves of convenience stores next to the Advil, I am suggesting to limit the amount of THC in marijuana by genetically altering the growing process.

2) But my argument will do more than prove that one particular industrial chemical has certain toxic properties. In this article, I will also uncover how many water cleaning plants around the world put this chemical in their water to make the water look clearer and cleaner, when in fact it is actually adding more harmful bacteria.

3) My point about the national obsessions with sports reinforces the belief held by many health experts that people tend to be more competitive about the smallest situations. Watching more sports gives people reason to differentiate themselves from one another, therefore giving an unbalance of trust.

4) I believe, therefore, that the war is completely justified. But let me back up and explain how I arrived at this conclusion. Researching about the Vietnam war, the war in Afghanistan is no different from a political standpoint. Both wars have shot war bonds through the roof which is a good thing, if you own a portion of the company. But think of the men and women giving their lives in the war right now, and for what, a quick buck? It makes me sick to think there are people in the world are trying to get money out a of a situation where there can be no national gain. In this way, I came to believe this war is a big mistake.

Targeting kids: Marketing Genius?

#1

In an article by Eric Schlosser "Your Trusted Friends" Schlosser pounds us with statistics and other information while keeping the us entertained by keeping the read interesting by including two very important figures of American history, Walt Disney of the Disney corporation and Ray Kroc of the McDonald's franchise.
During the article Schlosser constantly shells us with past time facts of decisions made by the two giants in the advertising world, Disney and Kroc and how each developed a niche in their advertising to one group in particular, kids. Both Disney and Kroc made advertising to include bright colors and great cartoon characters that would be both influential and beneficial to kids by having the characters have good traits and having them salute the good old red, white and blue.
While the article may seem like it is praising the fact of advertising to children, if you look between the lines it is obvious to see Schlosser is really pointing out how children are no longer children, but puppets of corporations and their fun cartoon character advertising. To show this Schlosser spends a few paragraphs showing just how serious the effects of advertising to children can be harmful. "Many studies had found that young children often could not tell the difference between television programming and television advertising (192).
#5

There has been debates of the decades of wether or not corporations should be able to target children as their main audience. Some of the people on the corporations side say "Why not, what's the harm in throwing a few colorful characters in the world of advertising?" while others say it is unethical to target children for a companies quick buck. Eric Schlosser, an investigative journalist, is sided with the latter of the two while I agree with the former.
Companies targetting children for their main source of income is not a problem to me as I was once a child and can fondly remember stepping into a Kroger and seeing a Winnie the Poo coloring book placed near the check out stations of the store. While Schlosser would say that in the end of all of these marketing strategies damage a child's perception on what is what, I say it is okay to have a child have fun with his youth and relish in the ecstasy that is the cartoon advertising world. Though sometimes I think the companies exploit the fact children are easy to take control of and I think the companies should take moral and ethical responsibility to take the advertising down a notch to children.
Schlosser puts in good information through the course of his article which opens up the eyes of those who are ignorant enough to say advertising is not a harmful tool no matter what its use is for. "Children's clubs have for years been considered an effective means of targeting ads and collecting demographic information..." (191). This is where i have common ground with Schlosser, targeting children for their marketing ploys is fine, but if a child feels he needs to join a club for acceptance, then that is where i draw the line of marketing towards children. I think kids of all ages should be able to be accepted no matter if they are a part of the Micky Mouse Club or not.

Cookie Cutter America

Yves Engler and I have a common belief on a large topic at hand in America today, and when I say large I mean that figuratively and literally. While according to the latest statistics of the obesity charts, 61% of Americans are considered overweight, but while some blame the overall responsibility of this problem on the individual the rest of us agree that it is actually the government's fault for making us this way.
The main problem Americans are having trouble with is the fact that America itself won't let us be what we are, this is where Engler and I have common ground. America's advertising is always showing us what we should look like and if we don't fit in the cookie cutter shape, then this is how we can. Today many advertisements give us the option of their dollar menus, and why not? It's only 89 cents and a few times a week won't hurt us, right?
Engler suggests us Americans to start getting thinner by solving the threat to the younger generation through more active daily routines, I think this is a great way to eliminate the growing problem, but where do we, the middle aged victims, fit in? To solve this obesity epidemic I suggest we begin to take action by not eating at these fast food restaurant death traps. I suggest we stay true to ourselves by staying healthy and active without purchasing the diet guides, but not by helping the corporations only planning to later write what is on our headstone "Eat at Burger King."

Blog 3

It seems to be that Yves Engler, political activist and writer, has a problem with the motives of capitalist America. The theme of his article, which was posted in Z magazine in 2003, “Obesity: Most of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations” is the raging battle of obesity and the reason for the rising epidemic in America, the food industry. Engler drives his facts down with an anvil and is relentless his whole way through his argument.
In Engler’s view “The main reason people are consuming more, especially unhealthy products, is the food industry’s relentless advertising, especially to children” (175). It is statements like this and the facts which he backs his argument up with that make Engler’s article very convincing and persuasive. What Engler is doing in each one of his individual statements is saying the major reason our country is becoming more obese by the whopper is because of our capitalist nation and how we advertise our products to consumers. What really makes this article persuasive is just the sheer amount of facts Engler spits out while keeping his own voice to carry on his argument in an engaging way.
Throughout the entirty of Engler’s article, no current company is safe from the clutches of his enlightening telling. He makes a point to go across each company out there and exploit what they are doing to make America obese and not just fast food companies either, televising broadcast networks lay victim to Engler’s well addressed argument. It is easy to see that Yves Engler’s article hits home with every paragraph that is put on the paper, with hard facts and a great backing voice.

Summary #1
Fast food franchises all over the world seem to have at least one thing in common- they are everywhere. Today many Americans go to places like McDonald’s for breakfast, lunch, or dinner or maybe all three! It seems our country has entered a crisis that is starting to expand its unhealthy ways into our lives. Though writer David Zinczenko’s article “Don’t Blame the Eater” suggests places of healthy eating are few and far between I whole heartedly disagree, there are plenty of low calorie places Americans seem to not see on their way to the closest heart attack venue.
Healthy eating locations are all around us. Whether it is a farmer’s market or maybe a new sushi place just up the road, these healthy choices are closer than most Americans believe to be. In a sentence of Zinczenko’s article “Don’t Blame the Eater” he emphasizes healthy eating locations are nearly non-existent, “… you’ll see one of our country’s more than 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try to find someplace to buy a grapefruit.” Though sentence seems valid, it is in fact over exaggerated. Go down a road and for every two fast food restaurants you see I guarantee there will be just as many healthier choices to go to.
While there may be many fast food places to go to, it doesn’t necessarily mean everything on their menus are unhealthy. Go to any drive through and you will see a picture of a salad blown up to fit one panel of the menu. It is not that Americans do not have a choice in their eating habits that America itself is not healthy, but by the sheer ignorance that plagues this country that the only way to get a decent meal is through a carry out window.

Summary #2
America has let itself go. The people who currently reside in the great U.S of A are being physically attacked by the hand that is feeding them. In David Zinczenko’s article “Don’t Blame the Eater” David solely accuses the fast food industry of the increasing amount of childhood obesity cases.
In the article “Don’t Blame the Eater” David shows just how harmful fast food can be the human body by stating he had weighed 212 pounds at age 15. Now, David’s mother was not around the house that often so he of course ate what he could, but think of how many children in America who are currently in the same situation. With fast food restaurants lowering their prices each and every day, it is only a matter of time before a child consumes mostly fast food.
While David accuses just the fast food corporations, others blame the individual and his ability of having self control. This, while seeming like a valid argument is, on the other hand, is nothing short of an excuse to let the fast food industries flourish while the masses are blamed. While David’s most of David’s views are in the right place, the one that is to be questioned is that should the masses sue right away? The answer to this is no, rather than taking this situation to the highest authority, it would be a much better idea to diet and exercise before taking the next extreme level of action.

Blog 1

In the introduction to "They Say/I Say": The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, the authors, Gerald Graff and Cathy Berkinstein, provide templates to help students better themselves in their writing through active voice and giving help to have well thought out written arguments. During the course of the introduction both authors agree templates are a suitable way to let creativity flow through a writer by first having guidelines to follow and then expand on. Some might argue templates hinder the creative flow and make them write as Graff and Berkinstein put it being turned into "writing robots".
I agree with the views that of the authors. The templates while may look like boring guidelines only students would use for papers, many newspapers use these cookie cutters to help bring interesting facts to their articles. While some might disagree with me saying people do not use the templates word for word they would be right, but the formula remains the same though looking like an original work. Overall, I believe the templates are a perfect tool that everyone should use inside and outside classrooms to better themselves in their writing.

Test Post

This is my test post for English 101 for Captain Kirk!